america today

[Visalakshi Ramani]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Mr. R.R,

The green line is copy pasted from # 70. I did not type it!

I have heard about the dasAvathAram of Lord VishnU for specific purposes.

What was your need to take so many avatars just to spoil your studies?

G.O.K! (God Only Knows!).

JAGO RE! ABHI BHI DHER NAHIN HUAA!

V.R.

 

[Meerkat]

Dear Mr. R.R,

The green line is copy pasted from # 70. I did not type it!

I have heard about the dasAvathAram of Lord VishnU for specific purposes.

What was your need to take so many avatars just to spoil your studies?

G.O.K! (God Only Knows!).

JAGO RE! ABHI BHI DHER NAHIN HUAA!

V.R.

Bilkul mam, abhi mera dimaag thikane aa gaya. main aaj se padai par dyaan doonga. aapke bhavishya ke liya shubkaamnayein.

ok mam, now my mind has got some sense, from now I will concentrate on studies, all the best for ur future.

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

अपने भविश्यके बारे में सोचो बेटा !
मै खुद अपने भविश्यको देख लूंगी!

 

[Nara]

...1) A Lust can be a reason for Love and can ever continue to be a true and truthful Love...When a person Love a particular opposite sex, attracted by her/his beauty and wants to live together ever.

Dear Ravi, all this talk of love and lust has made me lust after finding what lust actually means. Can there be lust outside sexual sphere, like lust for money or lust for power? Some say they have lust for life, whatever that means. Is lust just an intense desire for something, or is it an uncontrollable craving? Can lust be managed? If so, is it lust to start with?

From what little I have read, it seems to me, whatever it may be, it originates from the deep nooks of our DNA. Whether it is mother's love for a child, brother's love for sister, lover's love for a lover, or love for humanity, why even love for a pet dog or a cat, all of this can be traced to the selfish gene that is "driven" to replicate and survive. The genes that support strategies that succeed in this non-stop process of survival and reproduction, become more predominant. The gene that produces feeling of love, to the extent it has helped men and women succeed in this biological chess game, has become common. Love is not a man-made social construct, it is an innate gene based "strategy" for survival and reproduction, coded deep inside our genes.

So, in summary, love of a mother to child helps her offspring carrying her genes succeed and reproduce. Love of brother to sister helps the sister survive, find a mate, reproduce and pas on part of the gene she has in common with her brother to the next generation. Love for a lover has direct benefit, a whopping 50% of the genes of the product is yours, so very important, no less important than the love of a mother to her child half of the baby's gene is guaranteed to be hers, no such guarantee on the dad's side -- men's enslavement of women through such concepts as கற்பு, etc., are designed to extract this guarantee without working for it.

The genes that cause fond feelings for children, that help children survive, gets automatically activated when we see a cute dog or cat. In as much as this is uncontrollable, is this lust?

Whatever the gene imperative may be, the brain this gene has endowed us with, gives human beings the ability to circumvent that imperative in some ingenious ways -- between me and my genes, I choose me, ImeMine. Let us use it to fashion our lives that increases our happiness and the happiness of people around us.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

"I said the same thing and asked if love or காதல் has an existence independent of lust, why should lovers just live as lovers only and desist from marriage, which is the licence for sexual intimacy."

Dear Mr. Sangom,

Should it read "why should NOT lovers live as lovers only...intimacy".

If lovers decide to live as lovers, and are contented with cherishing their pure love

in their hearts, there won't be any more broken hearts, suicides and honor

killings in the world. Am I correct?

with warm regards,
V.R.

Smt. VR,

Thank you for pointing out the omission. I have since corrected my post.

 

[Raghy]

Chi.Ravi Sir,

Greetings.

In my post I have neither generalized female tendencies nor male tendencies...I have just listed out some of the basic/natural tendencies of both the genders.

Sri.Ravi, you are contradicting yourself. When you say 'basic/natural tendencies', it is a generalising statement, as far as I know.

I did not realize that some of the members would find it grossly ridiculous.

I merely recorded my objections. I did not remember saying anything like 'grossly ridiculous'. I merely recorded my objections, since I was not going in detail, at that time.

You have listed few qualities for men/boys as natural tendencies and said it was the creation (to follow such qualities?) How many men/boys have you come across who died for the 'beauty' of a girl? How do you know men would be in lust, that too as a natural tendency? You are picturing men as if they are after the girls as animals. I have news for you; going after each other works both ways. Most often than not, it is the girl who makes the first move towards intimacy, not men. There is a very good reason for it ....if the girl had not made the first move, there is always the risk of getting blamed for rape. Most men may not like to start that they may not be able to complete.

Very few percentage of men get involved in rape situations. You can not brand all men under the same umbrella. I am not guessing, I know, girls chase boys too. It is natural tendency for the boys and girls to get attracted to each other; but that does not mean, sex is the only aim in their minds. Possibly sex may come much later..or may not come at all.

Women are way too complicated than you can ever imagine. Even the girls will not accept your generalising; because, they know boys can't be knocked that easy. In India, in Tamil Nadu, boys/girls may be living in a very controlled atmosphere. You may not generalise based on that. You should extend your horizon, consider the boys/girls in an environment with complete freedom and safety; your opinions may change a bit.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Chi.Ravi,

Sri.Nara beat me in addressing about 'lust'.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

...
From what little I have read, it seems to me, whatever it may be, it originates from the deep nooks of our DNA. Whether it is mother's love for a child, brother's love for sister, lover's love for a lover, or love for humanity, why even love for a pet dog or a cat, all of this can be traced to the selfish gene that is "driven" to replicate and survive. The genes that support strategies that succeed in this non-stop process of survival and reproduction, become more predominant. The gene that produces feeling of love, to the extent it has helped men and women succeed in this biological chess game, has become common. Love is not a man-made social construct, it is an innate gene based "strategy" for survival and reproduction, coded deep inside our genes.

So, in summary, love of a mother to child helps her offspring carrying her genes succeed and reproduce. Love of brother to sister helps the sister survive, find a mate,

Dear Shri Nara,

I have a doubt; there was a custom of siblings marrying, and perhaps then the brother's love might have worked in the way you describe. But in the current scenario, what relevance has sibling love in gene preservation? Even if we agree - for the sake of argument - that brother's love helps the sister find a mate, a sister's love seems to have no role in a similar sense. Kindly clarify.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sangom Sir said (To Chi.Ravi) -

In my opinion what you wrote were relevant and unexceptionable. I am of the opinion that "lust" or kāmam, is the basic natural instinct and love or காதல் is a superimposed layer. In this context I recollect some discussions in another thread where I said the same thing and asked if love or காதல் has an existence independent of lust, why should not lovers just live as lovers only and desist from marriage, which is the licence for sexual intimacy.

Greetings Sir. I love my countries; I love my children; I love my neighbourhood; I love my car; I love my job; I love to watch an old movie; I love scotch; I love bourbun; I love.......not all the 'love' has sexual intimacy involved in it. Sexual intimacy need not have a licence through marriage at all. It can happen anytime, if the girl and the boy have the rigt proximity and right situation. In Tamil Nadu we are still following the custom of sex after marriage. In the wider world, sex and marriage are not connected in any order. When we had the discussion earlier, this was also my point.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Raghy Ji,

I apologize for the delayed response, as I was intermittently sick.

Sir, with all due respect, I do not have a history of posting indirect comments in this Forum. On the contrary, I have been very direct responding to certain postings as many in this Forum who know me well would attest.

Now to my posting. While it took off of what others including you and Sri TBS Ji have said, it was a continuing thoughts on my own about this topic, with which I happened to have given some thought during my life. In fact last time I remember making a comment like this in another thread was what happened in your country - where a Mullah tried to justify a gang rape of a woman by saying something like 'when a meat is out there on the street, people have a right to it' or something very similar.

So, I extended this thought to clarify. I do not make moral judgments about other people's personal lives, nor am I interested in preaching any morality to anyone. I did read your postings and that is why I don't understand why I was addressing you both.

As far as I am concerned, again, if I am sexually attracted to a woman other than my wife, then I need help in determining why this is so (thank god, has not happened to me so far).

Corollary to this is - I do not subscribe to the theory that it is a woman's fault as a seductress - a man who is happy and is in love would never succumb to a different woman's sexuality. If he does, then that means that there was no love.

Regards,
KRS

Sri. KRS Sir,

Greetings. Kindly read the whole message written by me & Sri.tbs before indirectly suggesting therapies!

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

hi Raghy sir,
sorry for this long discussion....i just give simple reply to Ramanujan.......adiyenukku onnum theriyathu...

regards
tbs

Sri.tbs Sir,

Greetings. There is nothing to fell sorry about..it was a very nice discussion. If the girls do not know already, now they know, they can wrap their husbands around the finger while in madisar too! This information would be welcome amoung them. They would be actually thanking you for starting this discussion!

adiyenukku onnum theriyathu

Yeah..sure, we believe you!

Cheers!

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

Already most ladies know how to control their dear husbands and

manipulate them.

So now you are bent of teaching them by taking classes on

"How to wrap your husband around your little finger?"
Do we really have to teach a fish the art of swimming? :moony:

 

[Raghy]

Sri.KRS Sir,

Greetings. My comment you was meant to be more jovial than being serious. We were discussing a glamorous topic; there was no need for me to get uptight. My write ups are not in connection with viewing women as 'sexual objects'; my write ups are a bit more deeper than that. I don't thik Hilali's comment made in Sydney WRT 'exposed meat attracting cats' are quite relevant to this discussion though. By the way, nothing wrong in indirectly suggesting something. It is also acceptable, decent way of getting a point across. So, one does not have to feel bad about that even if that was the case.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Do we really have to teach a fish the art of swimming?

Sow. Visalakshi Ramani,

Greetings. Actually sometimes, we do. Some of the fish varities born in captivity needs training before getting released in the ocean.

If the girl was unfortunate enough to have grown in tense atmosphere (due to poverty, family break-ups, socital pressure etc), such young ladies may very well do with a bit of empowering through a bit of knowledge...

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Thanks, Sri Raghy Ji,

As I have said, I was not commenting on yours nor others' postings.

This topic started as what we were discussing about America - with nude girls etc. So what is 'sexual' got discussed. So obviously what is decent etc. are topics that are relevant. The cleric's saying is very pertinent, because we were talking about the supposed 'values' of American ladies.

May be by now the discussions have gone to a different place.

Regards,
KRS

Sri.KRS Sir,

Greetings. My comment you was meant to be more jovial than being serious. We were discussing a glamorous topic; there was no need for me to get uptight. My write ups are not in connection with viewing women as 'sexual objects'; my write ups are a bit more deeper than that. I don't thik Hilali's comment made Sydney WRT 'exposed meat attracting cats' are quite relevant to this discussion though. By the way, nothing wrong in indirectly suggesting something. It is also acceptable, decent way of getting a point across. So, one does not have to feel bad about that even if that was the case.

Cheers!

 

[amala]

Chi.Ravi Sir,

Greetings. [/COLOR] Sri.Ravi, you are contradicting yourself. When you say 'basic/natural tendencies', it is a generalising statement, as far as I know. I merely recorded my objections. I did not remember saying anything like 'grossly ridiculous'. I merely recorded my objections, since I was not going in detail, at that time.

You have listed few qualities for men/boys as natural tendencies and said it was the creation (to follow such qualities?) How many men/boys have you come across who died for the 'beauty' of a girl? How do you know men would be in lust, that too as a natural tendency? You are picturing men as if they are after the girls as animals. I have news for you; going after each other works both ways. Most often than not, it is the girl who makes the first move towards intimacy, not men. There is a very good reason for it ....if the girl had not made the first move, there is always the risk of getting blamed for rape. Most men may not like to start that they may not be able to complete.

Very few percentage of men get involved in rape situations. You can not brand all men under the same umbrella. I am not guessing, I know, girls chase boys too. It is natural tendency for the boys and girls to get attracted to each other; but that does not mean, sex is the only aim in their minds. Possibly sex may come much later..or may not come at all.

Women are way too complicated than you can ever imagine. Even the girls will not accept your generalising; because, they know boys can't be knocked that easy. In India, in Tamil Nadu, boys/girls may be living in a very controlled atmosphere. You may not generalise based on that. You should extend your horizon, consider the boys/girls in an environment with complete freedom and safety; your opinions may change a bit.

Cheers!


[/COLOR]

Exactly what I was trying to convey to him in my post but you did it so brilliantly. Thank you and you're totally, totally spot on!

 

[amala]

Dear Sri Raghy Ji,

I apologize for the delayed response, as I was intermittently sick.

Sir, with all due respect, I do not have a history of posting indirect comments in this Forum. On the contrary, I have been very direct responding to certain postings as many in this Forum who know me well would attest.

Now to my posting. While it took off of what others including you and Sri TBS Ji have said, it was a continuing thoughts on my own about this topic, with which I happened to have given some thought during my life. In fact last time I remember making a comment like this in another thread was what happened in your country - where a Mullah tried to justify a gang rape of a woman by saying something like 'when a meat is out there on the street, people have a right to it' or something very similar.

So, I extended this thought to clarify. I do not make moral judgments about other people's personal lives, nor am I interested in preaching any morality to anyone. I did read your postings and that is why I don't understand why I was addressing you both.

As far as I am concerned, again, if I am sexually attracted to a woman other than my wife, then I need help in determining why this is so (thank god, has not happened to me so far).

Corollary to this is - I do not subscribe to the theory that it is a woman's fault as a seductress - a man who is happy and is in love would never succumb to a different woman's sexuality. If he does, then that means that there was no love.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRSji,

I hope you get well soon.

Perhaps as an unmarried girl this is not my arena at all but I find it slightly disconcerting that you would need help (i think you said therapy in another post) if at all you were sexually attracted a woman who is not your wife. I feel that is too harsh a statement to make of oneself.

Surely it is entirely normal for someone to be sexually or otherwise attracted to other people as long as he/she doesn't act on it and commit rape or infidelity or be unfaithful to ones spouse. I am not at all advocating random infidelity.

If one cheats on ones spouse then I agree they need help sorting out their marriage, if they wish to. If one is merely sexually attracted to someone else but never acts on it and probably its just a phase and they get over it, I completely fail to see what help they need.

In this day and age we are more than ever bombarded with information saying that apparently it is not natural for humans to be monogamous and how monogamy is forced upon us by society etc. We as women are also told that men who succumb to other womens sexuality, does not mean he doesn't love us because for men sex and love are different!

 

[Nara]

... But in the current scenario, what relevance has sibling love in gene preservation? Even if we agree - for the sake of argument - that brother's love helps the sister find a mate, a sister's love seems to have no role in a similar sense.

Dear Shri Sangom,
siblings are very closely related and share a high degree of gene commonality. Therefore, each sibling has a stake in the survival and reproduction of other siblings. As the distance in relatedness grows, the stake in the survival and reproductive imperative of the related individual diminishes. The closer is the relatedness, the more intensely felt is the survival and reproductive imperative, which manifests in higher degree of love/affection/attachment.

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, gives a rough methodology to estimate this relatedness and the selfishness of the common gene collective that result in love amongst related individuals. devoted to this. It goes something like as follows (pp 104 - 106):

..... here is a rough and ready rule for working out the relatedness between any two individuals A and B. First identify all the common ancestors of A and B. For instance, the common ancestors of a pair of first cousins are their shared grandfather and grandmother. Once you have found a common ancestor, it is of course logically true that all his ancestors are common to A and B as well. However, we ignore all but the most recent common ancestors. In this sense, first cousins have only two common ancestors. If B is a lineal descendant of A, for instance his great grandson, then A himself is the 'common ancestor' we are looking for.

Having located the common ancestor(s) of A and B, count the generation distance as follows. Starting at A, climb up the family tree until you hit a common ancestor, and then climb down again to B. The total number of steps up the tree and then down again is the generation distance. For instance, if A is B's uncle, the generation distance is 3. The common ancestor is A's father (say) and B's grandfather. Starting at A you have to climb up one generation in order to hit the common ancestor. Then to get down to B you have to descend two generations on the other side. Therefore the generation distance is 1 + 2 = 3.

Having found the generation distance between A and B via a particular common ancestor, calculate that part of their relatedness for which that ancestor is responsible. To do this, multiply 1/2 by itself once for each step of the generation distance. If the generation distance is 3, this means calculate 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2. If the generation distance via a particular ancestor is equal to g steps, the portion of relatedness due to that ancestor is (1/2) to the power g.

But this is only part of the relatedness between A and B. If they have more than one common ancestor we have to add on the equivalent figure for each ancestor. It is usually the case that the generation distance is the same for all common ancestors of a pair of individuals. Therefore, having worked out the relatedness between A and B due to any one of the ancestors, all you have to do in practice is to multiply by the number of ancestors.

First cousins, for instance, have two common ancestors, and the generation distance via each one is 4. Therefore their relatedness is 1/8. If A is Bs greatgrandchild, the generation distance is 3 and the number of common 'ancestors' is 1 (B himself), so the relatedness is 1/8. Genetically speaking, your first cousin is equivalent to a great grandchild. Similarly, you are just as likely to 'take after' your uncle (relatedness = 1/4) as after your grandfather (relatedness = 1/4). For relationships as distant as third cousin (1/128), we are getting down near the baseline probability that a particular gene possessed by A will be shared by any random individual taken from the population. A third cousin is not far from being equivalent to any old Tom, Dick, or Harry as far as an altruistic gene is concerned. A second cousin (relatedness = 1/32) is only a little bit special; a first cousin somewhat more so (1/8). Full brothers and sisters, and parents and children are very special (1/2), and identical twins (relatedness = 1) just as special as oneself. Uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, grandparents and grandchildren, and half brothers and half sisters, are intermediate with a relatedness of 3. Now we are in a position to talk about genes for kin-altruism much more precisely. A gene for suicidally saving five cousins would not become more numerous in the population, but a gene for saving five brothers or ten first cousins would. The minimum requirement for a suicidal altruistic gene to be successful is that it should save more than two siblings (or children or parents), or more than four half-siblings ....

(Caveat: There are many other factors that go into mutual feelings two people may have for each other. It would be silly to suggest that precise calculations can be made in these matters. What RD is presenting is a method to estimate the overall gene induced tendencies.)
​

According to this analysis, between siblings of the same parents the relatedness is 1/2. This is a fairly high degree of relatedness that makes it worthwhile for siblings to be highly vested in the sibling's success of survival and reproduction next only to his/her own. The way these tendencies get actualized may differ between a brother and a brother, sister and a sister, or brother and sister, there are may examples of each kind, the most readily recognizable among my generation is the famous Pasa Malar movie.

Hope this makes sense, it does to me, totally

Cheers!

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

Dear Mr. Raghy,

Actually those born in poverty and those have to face more problems in life

emerge stronger and better suited for the battle of survival, than those who

have tread on rosy paths all along!

Well, if you want to join the opposite team and score same-side-goals, may be I

should just let you do so!

with warm regards,
V.R.

 

[Brahmanyan]

America today

Corollary to this is - I do not subscribe to the theory that it is a woman's fault as a seductress - a man who is happy and is in love would never succumb to a different woman's sexuality. If he does, then that means that there was no love.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS,

With permission I wish to intervene in the discussion. Your words bring to my mind two characters from our mythology. Sage Viswamithra and Sri Rama. The great Maharishi was seduced easily by Menaka and Soorpanaka failed to do so with Sri Rama. The difference lies in the strength of the charecter of individuals, and the basic values they held sacred.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[C RAVI]

Sri Raghy,


My replies are in blue..

Chi.Ravi Sir,

Greetings. [/COLOR] Sri.Ravi, you are contradicting yourself. When you say 'basic/natural tendencies', it is a generalising statement, as far as I know.

[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]Basic/natural tendencies are the basic tendencies that differs from person to person with exceptions. Both male and female gender's attitude, behavior, actions and reactions differs from each other in terms of sexual attractions and gratifications. I could not understand as what makes it as generalizing statement and in contradiction to my claims of “I am not generalizing”
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]
In my post #57, I have listed out the following 3 natural tendencies of men..

1) Men die for the beauty of girls, though he is not handsome

2) Men get attracted towards the beauty of the girls and naturally get seduced by her beauty
(without the girl personally seducing him)

3) Men have the natural tendency to be in lust irrespective of the beauty of the girls

I shall elaborate the above statements as below,

As per 1st statement - Basically as a natural tendency men would be attracted spontaneously with the beauty of a girl and would yearn for such a lady for his life, unmindful of his aesthetic qualities. This we all know very well. Does not mean that all the men have such a tendency..

As per 2nd statement - As a natural tendency, men gets attracted by a girls' beauty and get seduced, despite any specific attempt by a girl to seduce him expressing any kind of body languages. This too, I my opinion, is the fact. Does not mean that all the men can have such feelings.

As per 3nd statement - As a natural tendency, men can develop lust and urge to carry on with a girl though she is aesthetically challenged or even physically challenged. This is where the animal instinct of few men gets revealed. Obviously here too, we can not say that all the men got such animal instincts.
[/FONT]

I merely recorded my objections. I did not remember saying anything like 'grossly ridiculous'. I merely recorded my objections, since I was not going in detail, at that time.

I agree with you here. Excuse me for this confusion...By such a statement - 'members considering my statements as grossly ridiculous', I truly didn't mean to raise such a doubt considering your note.

You have listed few qualities for men/boys as natural tendencies and said it was the creation (to follow such qualities?) How many men/boys have you come across who died for the 'beauty' of a girl? How do you know men would be in lust, that too as a natural tendency? You are picturing men as if they are after the girls as animals. I have news for you; going after each other works both ways. Most often than not, it is the girl who makes the first move towards intimacy, not men. There is a very good reason for it ....if the girl had not made the first move, there is always the risk of getting blamed for rape. Most men may not like to start that they may not be able to complete.

[FONT=times new roman, new york, times, serif]Please go though my first clarifications as detailed above explaining natural tendencies. I an not picturing men and women natural tendencies on my own. And I am not intended to degrade or upgrade any gender. I am a Male too.

I have not highlighted anything about developing intimacy in relationships. I have not tried to justify who move towards intimacy first for a true love to happen with the intention of living together for life in a marriage relationship...

Its all about how prone are the girls to be molested by men (other than family abuses) as per tendencies (that some men could not or never bother to control)

Moreover your observations on moving towards intimacy and the attempt of raping, in my humble opinion, can not be considered a common phenomena and as applicable to all men and women. How do you say so sir? How many girls did you come across in your life to establish that, all women wants intimacy with out which she can never have sex? How many men did you come across in you life Sir, to establish firmly that no one will make a first move, otherwise of which it would be considered as rape attempt, so as to be successful.

First of all as a basic acceptance/understanding, raping is considered raping only if its been action ed without a single move/invite of the girl.

I am asking these questions only to substantiate that, my posting were all about sexual influences/abuses, outside home, not considering the feel of loving, getting into true, compassionate and matured love, than developing intimacy to get into marital bondage.
[/FONT]
Very few percentage of men get involved in rape situations. You can not brand all men under the same umbrella. I am not guessing, I know, girls chase boys too. It is natural tendency for the boys and girls to get attracted to each other; but that does not mean, sex is the only aim in their minds. Possibly sex may come much later..or may not come at all.

Please go though my explanations above....I had not branded all men in common under the same umbrella.

My posts were to discuss on how and why women are prone to sexual abuses. Its not about love affair and in that whether sex come in picture before developing love or not and who move towards building up intimacy and the ways of doing so.




Women are way too complicated than you can ever imagine. Even the girls will not accept your generalising; because, they know boys can't be knocked that easy. In India, in Tamil Nadu, boys/girls may be living in a very controlled atmosphere. You may not generalise based on that. You should extend your horizon, consider the boys/girls in an environment with complete freedom and safety; your opinions may change a bit.


In my post #57, I have listed out the following 5 natural tendencies of women..

1) Girls have the tendency to reveal their beauty and to be attractive to men

2) Girls compete with each other to prove who is more beautiful and who is more attractive

3) Girls feel embarrassed if they are not well groomed up and not looking great, in front of group of guys.

4) Girls likes a guy for his intelligence, honesty and or his success levels

5) Girls like a guy for his physical appearance/attractions too and it’s the basic.

I have not generalized that all women on this Earth got similar tendencies and all are under one umbrella.


Freedom and Safety is not the botheration of my posts Sir..In India too there are much safety regulations and laws are imposed for taking erring guys into task...Girls got every means and ways to even fix a innocent guy.

I have clearly indicated in my previous post as how girls can knock guys. The only way of knocking guys by girls are, their braveness, their broadmindedness, their liberty and the legal support that they get. Off course this is what we want in our healthy society. If no legal systems are streamlined with respect to sexual abuses than we can find many more cases of men losing their control over their tendencies and indulging in sexual abuses, than the levels of happening even now....Isn't it?

I have highlighted the male & female tendencies considering the total male species on this Earth. Since many of we men don't have animal instinct, since many of we men don't wish for a more beautiful women as our life partner than our own aesthetic qualities, since many of we men don't even associate girls beauty as a kind of stimulation and just end up praising God for his creation, we can't say that no men on this earth are indulging in sexual abuses and rape. We can not deny the tendencies of men in general pertaining to sexual attractions in common.

The differences in men behavior, control over tendencies etc, purely depends only on their principles, moral values, ethics, attitude, discipline and their belief.

I have focused only on the reasons of sexual abuses and not the ways and means of falling in love, getting intimate and be in a pure/legal relationships

I have not indicated in any of my post as all men or all women got all sorts of influences and as such they act and react.

Whether its India or any other country outside, these basic human tendencies are common. We come across many stories, the reason of it and the legal actions that are successfully been carried out against culprits.

In my post I have just highlighted the basic tendencies of both the genders in common, that's leading to crimes and abuses.

I have no narrow understanding in this subject, that need to be extended towards horizon. And I am not branding any men and women under one specific umbrella. In fact, I have covered the points considering the total populations across the world.

Cheers!


[/COLOR]

Hope it clears......

 

[C RAVI]

Shri KRSji,

We as women are also told that men who succumb to other womens sexuality, does not mean he doesn't love us because for men sex and love are different!

Exactly Amala.....I agree with your above generalized statement.. Men can have sex with ladies other than his wife, because for men sex and love are different. This is why Sex Industry is ever booming..

This is what I have highlighted in my previous posts, that men can naturally get seduced by the beauty of women and indulge in sex with the acceptance of the lady or by seducing / convincing the lady to fulfill his lust and not heart felt love. Having done so, he may still love his wife. Many guys get seduced and still get over it without getting into actions and that is purely due to his principles, morality, love and truthfulness towards his wife.

I re-iterate that, by my above statement I am not justifying such doings by men.

As Sri KRS ji, has stated, I am also putting forward my thoughts in posts to express the possibilities of sexual abuses. I am neither concerned and interested to preach morality & duties to any one nor justifying any wrong doings in our society.

Sri KRS ji, has highlighted the same giving his personal example (in my opinion), otherwise of which, others would be disheartened, considering it as a blind blame.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Sri KRS,

With permission I wish to intervene in the discussion. Your words bring to my mind two characters from our mythology. Sage Viswamithra and Sri Rama. The great Maharishi was seduced easily by Menaka and Soorpanaka failed to do so with Sri Rama. The difference lies in the strength of the charecter of individuals, and the basic values they held sacred.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Well said Sri Brahmanyan,

From the time immemorial, men acted and reacted and still doing so purely based on their character, sacred values & principles, overruling some or all of their natural flaws as male species.

 

[C RAVI]

Sri Raghy,

Though your post is addressed to Sri Sangom, I would like to share my views with you, if you are not mistaken..Please find my comments in Blue..

Sri.Sangom Sir said (To Chi.Ravi) -



Greetings Sir. I love my countries; I love my children; I love my neighbourhood; I love my car; I love my job; I love to watch an old movie; I love scotch; I love bourbun; I love.......not all the 'love' has sexual intimacy involved in it.

Love towards Countries, Love towards children, Love towards neighborhood, Love towards job & Love towards any object, has nothing to do with Sexual intercourse and obviously does not involve and require sexual intimacy and would not affect the other individual in any way.

Sexual intimacy need not have a licence through marriage at all. It can happen anytime, if the girl and the boy have the rigt proximity and right situation. In Tamil Nadu we are still following the custom of sex after marriage. In the wider world, sex and marriage are not connected in any order. When we had the discussion earlier, this was also my point.

Perfect..Absolutely perfect...Sexual intimacy need not have a license through marriage at all. That is why in India too we have many Chinna Veedus who all are very much happy with their sexually intimated men (who are licensed with marriage with their wives). By being happy, I didn't mean to highlight the mean fulfillment of material comforts that they get, but the true feel of heart and compassion they give and receive (may be)

Off course sexual intimacy can happen if the girl and and the boy have the right proximity and right situation and they go in tango. The point to ponder here is, whether such sexual intimacy are just for pleasure or to fulfill the intimacy of heart felt true love?

We agree that in wider word, sex and marriage are not connected in any order and is purely based of mutual acceptance of both boys and girls. In the narrow world also, this logic and passion goes well and is happening in minority. Because the sexual requirement is common for men and women and they derive pleasure out of it. The point is how each one of us consider Sex. Sex without marriage can be purely for some fun and pleasure and can also be out of love and care. Its like boys and girls agreeing - I love you, you love me, we both need sexual fulfillment and we both mutually agree to have. This acceptance, citing the reason of love can not necessarily be the Truth. That's why we find many girls being ignored by boys, after having satisfied to the extent possible under the pretext of true love.


Neither women are sex object nor men are sex object for each other. Its the natures creation, which validates the concept of sexual intercourse as the requirement for both the genders.

The license of marriage guarantees true love (in love marriage) & true liking (in arrange marriage) to proceed with sexual intimacy, accepting the nature's rule of incorporating sexual requirements in both men and women to breed their own species. The same requirement has been instilled as the feel of need and pleasure without which we men and women would not be bothered.

I have nothing to judge others and I have nothing to condemn or validate any one's will and wish. My above views are purely based on the subject of love and sexual intimacy as per my limited understanding..






Cheers!

 

[Visalakshi Ramani]

Dear Mr. Ravi,
What a long mail!

What is the secret of your stamina?
Is it Boost?

I did not read your message though. It is amazingly long! :fear:
May be when I find enough time to spare,
I will go through it!:clock:
with best wishes,
V.R.

P.S. If you don't mind being given a useful tip,
the correct usage is "from time immemorial".
And by the way all men are mortals too!
Cheers.
V.R.